Why do some people believe and some do not?

[posthuman]

Actually, it very much does. Your commitment to your present perspective is perhaps blinding you from seeing mine.

Paul gave examples of God hardening hearts and choosing by divine election one tqijnover the other before either had been born, specific before they had done anything right or wrong, and said Israel had likewise been partially hardened in order that Gentiles could be brought in.
Then he immediately said, someone will object, how then can God still judge since no one can resist His will?

that is categorically the opposite of the view you presented, that Paul is actually arguing God never hardens anyone's heart, that He never chooses anyone before they do right or wrong, in fa tu Never chooses anyone because God is necessarily ignorant of the future, and that what he is actually arguing against is people resisting God's will.



the text of Romans 9 absolutely does not in any way whatsoever support your ((and i must use this word incredibly loosely to describe what you have written)) "interpretation" of it.

 

[posthuman]

A different perspective on that passage is that Paul is dealing with the claim that no one can resist God's will

the only sense in which this is true is that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with your resistance to God's will to harden whom He pleases and have mercy on whom He pleases.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
Actually, that is not the obvious objection Paul anticipated to the gospel. A different perspective on that passage is that Paul is dealing with the claim that no one can resist God's will, and rebuking that claim, since He has just given examples of people who did resist God's will: the Edomites and Pharaoh.

The text does not support your interpretation.

Oh, it most certainly does.

 

[posthuman]

A different perspective on that passage is that Paul is dealing with the claim that no one can resist God's will, and rebuking that claim, since He has just given examples of people who did resist God's will: the Edomites and Pharaoh.

nope.
Look at the evidence:

what he said of Edom was this:

Romans 9:10-12​

And not only [this,] but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, [even] by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."​

​

completely contrary to your dialogue.

and what he said of Pharoah was this:

Romans 9:15-18​

For He says to Moses, ​

"I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." ​

So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ​

"For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." ​

Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.​

​

again exactly the opposite of what you are claiming the text is arguing.

the text simply does not support your view of the text; it is explicitly refuting that. it is not giving these as examples of people having resisted God's will - it is giving these as examples of God's sovereign will being irresistibly done despite the will or effort of people -

which is exactly why verse 19 is the anticipated response to these truths, which has also been exactly your own response: you rebuff at the idea God does as God pleases, arguing that by doing so He creates an unfair situation.

 

[studier]

Willing is always wishing and desiring. That's what thelO means: to will, want, desire.

Well, we would also disagree on whether scripture says God knows all the future, and knew it all before creating the world. That presupposition of yours is colouring your opinion on God's attitude to the unrepenting rebellious. Since I don't hold to that same presupposition, I am not obliged to accept the entailments of that presupposition.

It's not thelō in 2Pet3:9.

Understood. But the same applies to your presuppositions. I could also take it into other verses and concepts that don't require the presupposition you speak of. God obviously has lines He doesn't allow to be crossed, so to speak. I think He's capable of assessing such things perfectly and acting accordingly.

From what I'm reading from you, you seem to have a presupposition, whatever it is, that requires you to work around what is quite clear in the Text. No offense intended, but Paul seems to be talking to you in the Potter discussion in Rom9.

 

[studier]

If you read the story of Moses and pharaohj, you should be able to recognise that there was a to and fro in pharaoh between his heart softening and him repenting for a time because of God's actions (imposing a plague) , and his becoming belligerent against God in response to what God did (removing a plague and repeating His demand to let His people go). There are not one category of vessels who only get wrath and other category of vessels who only get mercy.

I've read it and have taken such things into account. I see no repentance stated. I see repetitive statements about Pharoah hardening himself and God hardening him. I see Paul seeing it the same.

You seem to be interpreting God hardening someone as being by a different method that that by which I harden hearts. You seem to see God's method of hardening as He imposing hardness, rather than He making demand that are responded to with the person hardening their own heart. Both expressions can describe exactly the same event.

I think I've made it fairly clear. As I understand you here, I see the hardening process the same way or at least similarly. God provides information and men reject and disobey Him. This is them hardening themselves and other associated language. In the sense I think we've been discussing, all He has to do is provide more information and/or demands and circumstances that can harden more and in this sense the Text says He's doing the hardening. I think there can be more in the sense of "method" but I've not really gone there in this discussion.

You didn't address the hardening of the Egyptians that resulted in their seemingly quick destruction. I'm not asking you to answer just noting you skipped it.

 

[studier]

the only sense in which this is true is that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with your resistance to God's will to harden whom He pleases and have mercy on whom He pleases.

Saw this after I noted similarly.

 

[posthuman]

From what I'm reading from you, you seem to have a presupposition, whatever it is, that requires you to work around what is quite clear in the Text. No offense intended, but Paul seems to be talking to you in the Potter discussion in Rom9.

yes the entire Potter and clay discussion is nonsense and completely out of place, if Paul is really making an argument about people resisting God's will, as Mr. Thompson suggests.

but it is there because the argument in Romans 9 is about God's sovereignty

 

[PaulThomson]

Are you taking into account the context of Pharoah who God hardened and raised up for His glory? He used him to openly defeat him and display His wrath against him and his army.

When the scene gets to the sea it says God hardened the hearts of the Egyptians to follow Israel and they ended up in the sea where they all perished. This may have made Israel consider any necessary repentance but it hardly provided the same for those hardened Egyptians.

So, in the hardening episodes the focus is not on repentance. There's actually no mention of repentance in Rom9 and we'd have to import it from its only mention (?) in Rom2. In Rom9:22 your take seems to be your hope rather than how I've seen you work in Scripture. It looks to me to be clearly saying that God had been patiently putting up with vessels of wrath who had been (in the past and were at the time God made His wrath know with them - perfect tense) prepared for destruction. IOW they were prepared and awaiting wrath when God chose to exercise wrath. There's no hint of any potential repentance being awaited.

When Paul mentions particular verses from the Old Testament (OT), he expects us to read the OT context of the cited verses to get his point. The fact that the cited verse does not mention pharaoh repenting, does not mean that Paul was arguing that pharaoh showed no repentance.The OT story says he did.

You continue to read into the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart" that "God wanted pharaoh to harden and worked in pharaoh's heart with the desire and intention of making pharaoh rebel". But that is not necessarily the sense of the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". The sense could be "I predict that what I am doing to get pharaoh to release my people, so that I can spare Egypt calamity and bless pharaoh if he willingly obeys, pharaoh will respond to with growing resentment and rebellion."

Both meanings are possible to draw from the bare clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". You seem unwilling to concede that this second sense is possible. I seem to be hardening your heart more against this second sense, the more I present it as a reasonable option. It is clear from the exodus story that pharaoh went through a series showed at times heart-hardening rebellion. which God responded to with plagues, and at other times, phases of repentance which God responded to with mercy, removing the plagues. Neither Moses nor pharaoh were either completely obedient or completely disobedient. The dynamic of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion benefited both Moses and Pharaoh at different times during the Exodus story. There are not two categories of eternally elect vessels of mercy and eternally non-elect vessels of wrath. Vessels of wrath can become vessels of mercy and vessels of mercy can become vessels of wrath.

You said " It looks to me to be clearly saying that God had been patiently putting up with vessels of wrath who had been (in the past and were at the time God made His wrath know with them - perfect tense) prepared for destruction. IOW they were prepared and awaiting wrath when God chose to exercise wrath. There's no hint of any potential repentance being awaited."

What the text actually says is "What if God, willing (thelOn: present active participle) to shew (endiexasthai: Aorist infinitive) his wrath, and to make known( gnOrisai: aorist active infinitive) his power, endured (Enegken: aorist active indicative) with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath having been fitted (katErismena: perfect passive participle) to destruction:"

The principle verb is endured (Enegken). The participles must be interpreted as actions happening in relation to this main verb, according to their participial tense. So, at what time in history is the verb endured placed. It is aorist/timeless, so could be located in either the past or the present or the future of the time Paul was writing. The context seems to indicate that Paul has in mind God;s endurance of the vessels of wrath over all time, up to the judgment. The present active indicative "willing" followed by the aorist infinitive "to show" indicates that God's "willing to show" was contemporaneous with His ongoing endurance up to the judgment. The present perfect passive/middle "fitted for destruction" indicates that the action of being fitted occurred in the past of the judgment and that state of fittedness continues into the time of the judgment. The form of the greek word translated "having been fitted" may be translated either in the passive voice with an agent other that the subject (vessels of wrath) doing the fitting to the subject; or in the middle voice, with the subject fitting themselves for destruction.

There is nothing in the text that indicates that this process of becoming fitted for destruction included no repentanceat all. In fact, experience shows that this fitting for destruction at the judgment happens over a life-time in a series of rebellions and repantances. There seem to be no reason to assume that since repentance is not mentioned in the verse, repentance cannot have happoened during the process of being fitted, when clearly, everyone does go through periods of repentance during their lives, even those whe will eventually be condemned at the judgment.

 

[posthuman]

When Paul mentions particular verses from the Old Testament (OT), he expects us to read the OT context of the cited verses to get his point. The fact that the cited verse does not mention pharaoh repenting, does not mean that Paul was arguing that pharaoh showed no repentance.The OT story says he did.

it is understood that the audience is familiar with the OT, so he draws attention to particulars of it to make his case.
you are purposefully ignoring the particular points he is making - that is incredibly poor reasoning on your part, leading to clear error.

You continue to read into the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart"

the apostle does too, using him as an example in Romans 9 that "God will have mercy on whom He will, and haeden whom He will" - - but you are still pretending this never happened.
again, incredibly poor reasoning on your part, utterly ignoring the text of Romans 9 itself, leading to clear error.

What the text actually says is "What if God, willing (thelOn: present active participle) to shew (endiexasthai: Aorist infinitive) his wrath, and to make known( gnOrisai: aorist active infinitive) his power, endured (Enegken: aorist active indicative) with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath having been fitted (katErismena: perfect passive participle) to destruction:"

you are in no position to comment on this because you have botched everything leading up to it. with a false foundation, no matter how much Greek googling you do, you are not at all persuasive.

 

[posthuman]

When Paul mentions particular verses from the Old Testament (OT), he expects us to read the OT context of the cited verses to get his point. The fact that the cited verse does not mention pharaoh repenting, does not mean that Paul was arguing that pharaoh showed no repentance.The OT story says he did.

You continue to read into the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart" that "God wanted pharaoh to harden and worked in pharaoh's heart with the desire and intention of making pharaoh rebel". But that is not necessarily the sense of the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". The sense could be "I predict that what I am doing to get pharaoh to release my people, so that I can spare Egypt calamity and bless pharaoh if he willingly obeys, pharaoh will respond to with growing resentment and rebellion."

Both meanings are possible to draw from the bare clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". You seem unwilling to concede that this second sense is possible. I seem to be hardening your heart more against this second sense, the more I present it as a reasonable option. It is clear from the exodus story that pharaoh went through a series showed at times heart-hardening rebellion. which God responded to with plagues, and at other times, phases of repentance which God responded to with mercy, removing the plagues. Neither Moses nor pharaoh were either completely obedient or completely disobedient. The dynamic of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion benefited both Moses and Pharaoh at different times during the Exodus story. There are not two categories of eternally elect vessels of mercy and eternally non-elect vessels of wrath. Vessels of wrath can become vessels of mercy and vessels of mercy can become vessels of wrath.

You said " It looks to me to be clearly saying that God had been patiently putting up with vessels of wrath who had been (in the past and were at the time God made His wrath know with them - perfect tense) prepared for destruction. IOW they were prepared and awaiting wrath when God chose to exercise wrath. There's no hint of any potential repentance being awaited."

What the text actually says is "What if God, willing (thelOn: present active participle) to shew (endiexasthai: Aorist infinitive) his wrath, and to make known( gnOrisai: aorist active infinitive) his power, endured (Enegken: aorist active indicative) with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath having been fitted (katErismena: perfect passive participle) to destruction:"

The principle verb is endured (Enegken). The participles must be interpreted as actions happening in relation to this main verb, according to their participial tense. So, at what time in history is the verb endured placed. It is aorist/timeless, so could be located in either the past or the present or the future of the time Paul was writing. The context seems to indicate that Paul has in mind God;s endurance of the vessels of wrath over all time, up to the judgment. The present active indicative "willing" followed by the aorist infinitive "to show" indicates that God's "willing to show" was contemporaneous with His ongoing endurance up to the judgment. The present perfect passive/middle "fitted for destruction" indicates that the action of being fitted occurred in the past of the judgment and that state of fittedness continues into the time of the judgment. The form of the greek word translated "having been fitted" may be translated either in the passive voice with an agent other that the subject (vessels of wrath) doing the fitting to the subject; or in the middle voice, with the subject fitting themselves for destruction.

There is nothing in the text that indicates that this process of becoming fitted for destruction included no repentanceat all. In fact, experience shows that this fitting for destruction at the judgment happens over a life-time in a series of rebellions and repantances. There seem to be no reason to assume that since repentance is not mentioned in the verse, repentance cannot have happoened during the process of being fitted, when clearly, everyone does go through periods of repentance during their lives, even those whe will eventually be condemned at the judgment.

please note that the pliant is "why have you made me like this" not "why are you trying to make me like this" and that the vessel is described as "formed" and "having been made" not "attempting to be formed" or "in the process of trying to be made"

Romans 9:20​

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed [it], "Why have you made me like this?"​

the text does not support your conclusions.

 

[studier]

The OT story says he did.

Since we disagree it doesn't make sense to expect one another to trust the other's statements. Let's use the Text. Please show me Pharaoh's repentance.

But that is not necessarily the sense of the clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". The sense could be "I predict that what I am doing to get pharaoh to release my people, so that I can spare Egypt calamity and bless pharaoh if he willingly obeys, pharaoh will respond to with growing resentment and rebellion."

Not necessarily? Could be? Spare Egypt calamity by wiping out its army? Argument from silence about Pharaoh willingly obeying?

Scripture?

Both meanings are possible to draw from the bare clause "I will harden pharaoh's heart". You seem unwilling to concede that this second sense is possible. I seem to be hardening your heart more against this second sense, the more I present it as a reasonable option.

Does any of the above argument truly seem "reasonable" to you? Your wording doesn't seem to contain much certainty.

You're not having an effect on me. I read the Text and compare your words. I disagree with you that your words correctly interpret the Text.

Vessels of wrath can become vessels of mercy and vessels of mercy can become vessels of wrath.

Again, show in the Text when and where Pharaoh becomes a vessel of mercy. I'm open to being persuaded by the Text.

You're using the Text in your next statement. I'll review it with you in a separate post. Thanks for that work.

 

[studier]

The principle verb is endured (Enegken).

Agreed

The participles must be interpreted as actions happening in relation to this main verb, according to their participial tense.

Agreed. The participle could be better translated to bring out its actual relationship to the main verb.

So, at what time in history is the verb endured placed. It is aorist/timeless, so could be located in either the past or the present or the future of the time Paul was writing.

Context is determinative. See comments below re: judgment re: your potential ("seems to") view of context.

The context seems to indicate that Paul has in mind God;s endurance of the vessels of wrath over all time, up to the judgment. The present active indicative "willing" followed by the aorist infinitive "to show" indicates that God's "willing to show" was contemporaneous with His ongoing endurance up to the judgment.

Maybe is contemporaneous is better. See next comment.

A future judgment may be involved but Paul is talking about what he sees taking place at that time so current judgment is likely also or mainly involved.

The present perfect passive/middle "fitted for destruction" indicates that the action of being fitted occurred in the past of the judgment and that state of fittedness continues into the time of the judgment.

I see this participle as perfect passive, not "passive/middle". See comments after next quote.

Agree on perfect tense but carrying forward my above comment re: context and judgment. IOW when God is seen to be judging as I see Paul speaking about in his time, those being judged were prepared for destruction in the past and still are in that condition. IOW they were and remain unrepentant (unbelieving as Paul will go on to speak about) and Paul can see the remnant and Gentiles' salvation because of this.

The form of the greek word translated "having been fitted" may be translated either in the passive voice with an agent other that the subject (vessels of wrath) doing the fitting to the subject; or in the middle voice, with the subject fitting themselves for destruction.

• Again, passive, not middle
  • Seems important to our interpretation. Where do you get middle?
• So, who/what is the agent?
  • The only agent who hardened – the only Molder – the only Potter – the only Merciful One - the only One who called - in context is God.
  • To fit the elaborated history of Pharaoh who was specifically hardened by God, just as Pharaoh also hardened himself in disobedience, Paul will proceed to speak of faith vs. unbelief and stumbling. IOW obedience vs. disobedience. IOW unbelievers involved in their own hardening.

There is nothing in the text that indicates that this process of becoming fitted for destruction included no repentanceat all. In fact, experience shows that this fitting for destruction at the judgment happens over a life-time in a series of rebellions and repantances. There seem to be no reason to assume that since repentance is not mentioned in the verse, repentance cannot have happoened during the process of being fitted, when clearly, everyone does go through periods of repentance during their lives, even those whe will eventually be condemned at the judgment.

I don't see your point re: temporary repentance, especially since you acknowledge it does not save from being condemned. Along with this, I don't see the importance of what human experience may say.

Based upon your previously stated presupposition that God does not know all the future, and your lack of response as I recall to my suggestions from Scriptures I've posted that there looks to be a point of no return determined by God, it seems to me that you are needing to leave open potential repentance until final judgment (or physical death?) and thus cannot accept God's ability to make this determination before then and reciprocate towards self-closed eyes and ears, and self-hardened hearts as He so desires for His ultimate glory. Honestly, your position seems to be foreseen by Paul:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! (Rom. 9:14 NKJ)​

​

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Rom. 9:19 NKJ)​

 

[studier]

please note that the pliant is "why have you made me like this" not "why are you trying to make me like this" and that the vessel is described as "formed" and "having been made" not "attempting to be formed" or "in the process of trying to be made"

Romans 9:20​

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed [it], "Why have you made me like this?"​

the text does not support your conclusions.

Just to come alongside you with some very literal translation and removing the rhetoric: ...the molded thing does not ask the one who molded it, why did you make me thus?

You're absolutely correct that the molded thing is molded and was molded in the past and doesn't get to ask the molder why it is what it is. It is what it was molded to be.

Good comments.

 

[PaulThomson]

....
I see this participle as perfect passive, not "passive/middle". See comments after next quote.

Agree on perfect tense but carrying forward my above comment re: context and judgment. IOW when God is seen to be judging as I see Paul speaking about in his time, those being judged were prepared for destruction in the past and still are in that condition. IOW they were and remain unrepentant (unbelieving as Paul will go on to speak about) and Paul can see the remnant and Gentiles' salvation because of this.

• Again, passive, not middle
• 
  
  • Seems important to our interpretation. Where do you get middle?
• So, who/what is the agent?
• 
  
  • The only agent who hardened – the only Molder – the only Potter – the only Merciful One - the only One who called - in context is God.
  • To fit the elaborated history of Pharaoh who was specifically hardened by God, just as Pharaoh also hardened himself in disobedience, Paul will proceed to speak of faith vs. unbelief and stumbling. IOW obedience vs. disobedience. IOW unbelievers involved in their own hardening.

I don't see your point re: temporary repentance, especially since you acknowledge it does not save from being condemned. Along with this, I don't see the importance of what human experience may say.
Based upon your previously stated presupposition that God does not know all the future, and your lack of response as I recall to my suggestions from Scriptures I've posted that there looks to be a point of no return determined by God, it seems to me that you are needing to leave open potential repentance until final judgment (or physical death?) and thus cannot accept God's ability to make this determination before then and reciprocate towards self-closed eyes and ears, and self-hardened hearts as He so desires for His ultimate glory. Honestly, your position seems to be foreseen by Paul:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! (Rom. 9:14 NKJ)

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Rom. 9:19 NKJ)

The Greek verb forms for the middle and the passive voice are identical. Context must be used to decide which is meant. Sometimes both senses are possible, and which one one chooses will depend on which of them fits with one's broader understanding of what the Bible is describing. It is not honest to dismiss the use of the middle voice merely because one is presupposing a different perspective that requires it to be translated as passive, where its proponent can show that it makes sense as middle voice under their perspective,

After rejoicing over the awesome effects of walking in the Spirit for those putting their faith in Jesus in chapter 8, Paul addresses the question that might arise in the minds of Jews. If God's people now include Gentiles becoming acceptable to God by grace through faith without keeping the Mosaic Law, to whom Paul has been made an apostle, has Paul passed given upon and disowned those in the Jewish nation, according to the flesh, who are still aiming to keep the Mosaic Law to prove their righteousness? No.

Rom. 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Paul points out that his teaching that God is rejecting Christ-rejecting Jews from being His people is not a sudden policy reversal by God. God's people were never Abraham's descendants according to the flesh, but God's people have always been those who have respect for the promises of God and adjust their lives to make themselves eligible for the blessings inherent in those promises. Thes conditions include the promise that "He whoo blesses you, I will bless; and he who curses you, I will curse. So, even non Israelites could live under God's blessing, by respecting and blessing Israel.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

So, God's people were not all of Abraham's descendants, but would descend from a particular son of Abraham. Then Paul points out that not all Isaac's descendants were God's people either. But only those who accepted and upheld the hierarchy ordained by God: that the descendants of the older Esau should serve the descendants of the younger Jacob.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

This edict was not merely that the person Esau should serve the person Jacob. Genesis makes it clear that there were two nations in Rebecca's womb, so this edict was that the nation of Esau/Edom should serve the nation of Jacob/Israel. Those Edomites who submitted God's edict, humbly defending Israel, would be expressing faith in God, and would be blessed along with blessed Israel, and because of their their faithfulness to and faith in Yahweh, Yahweh would regarded even them as his children, and would bless them. This proved true for the person Esau, who eventually accepted his servant status and was blessed by God for doing so.

However, Esau's descendants, Edom, departed from Esau's faithfulness, and made a habit of attacking the nation Jacob/Israel, for which treason God hated Esau/Edom and destroyed them. Now, the nation Israel was just as treasonous towards God as Edom was, but because of His promise to preserve Israel until Shiloh come, Yahweh continued to preserve Israel. This is why God says through Malachi 2000 years after His delegating Jacob to be the head,
"Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated, therefore you are not destroyed." he did not say this to Jacob and Esau in the womb, in 1791 BC; but to their descendants 13 centuries later, in 450 BC.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Is God unrighteous to destroy Esau but preserve equally treacherous Jacob? That is to hate 5th century BC Edomites, but love 5th century Israel?

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

No. God's mercy is His mercy to dispense as He wills. This is like the parable of the unemployed labourers who were all paid a days income whether they worked all day or for one hour. The landowner was accused of unfairness for paying the part-day workers the same as he paid the all-day workers. If God wants to show mercy to some candidates, He is not obliged to show equal mercy to all candidates. God does not have to grant mercy to all those who want it, nor to all those who put in effort to get it; but it is His prerogative to decide to whom He will show mercy. Moses wanted to see God's face and He had worked hard for God, so that he may have thought he had earned the privilege of seeing God's face, but God did not show him mercy and grant that to him.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And a majority of Jews, who were descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, according to flesh, shall be judged as rebels and cut off; but a remnant of them down through history will believe in Christ and be saved.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

So, under the gospel, Gentiles according to the flesh, who were once faithless toward, God will be won over to faith by the love of God demonstrated through Christ; but Israel according to the flesh who sought to demonstrate their uniqueness and moral superiority to the gentiles by outward customs of Torah law-keeping, thinking that their God-given laws were what made them morally superior, proved their own unrighteousness by their imperfect keeping of the law and lip-service to God.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[PaulThomson]

....

So, under the gospel, Gentiles according to the flesh, who were once faithless toward, God will be won over to faith by the love of God demonstrated through Christ; but Israel according to the flesh who sought to demonstrate their uniqueness and moral superiority to the gentiles by outward customs of Torah law-keeping, thinking that their God-given laws were what made them morally superior, proved their own unrighteousness by their imperfect keeping of the law and lip-service to God.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

...
Pharaoh was raised up for the same purpose as God raised up Moses. Pharaoh, like Moses, like all people, was to reveal God's power and make His name great everywhere. He could have fulfilled that purpose by willingly releasing the Israelites, as Cyrus would do centuries later. But he chose to resist God's will. This did not stop God revealing His own power and making His name great everywhere through pharaoh. But He did it at pharaoh's expense: by having pharaoh and His armies destroyed.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

So, we can see that it matters not to God's goal whether a person respond with submission or with a hardening of their heart against God, either way God will succeed in showing His power and making His name great everywhere in the end. God's plan is not thwarted by a response of resistance to His plan.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Now, an interlocutor may argue that, if God's plans are fulfilled no matter how people respond to Him, then no one can resist what God wants to do. And if no one can resist what God wants to do, then everything that happens must be by His permission. And if everything is done by His permission, then He must approve of everything that is done. And if He approves of everything that is done, even their resistance to him, then how can God hold people guilty for doing the resistance He has approved of ,that He could have stopped them doing? Does this line of reasoning look familiar?

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Does Paul give the answer: "You need to distinguish between God's decretive will and His permissive will"? Does Paul argue for compatibilism? Does Paul say, "You need just to believe that God is beyond logic and accept both of two contradictory claims: both that people harden their own hearts by their own volition, and that God works in them to give them whatever degree of hardness He wants and determines them to have"? No.

The interlocutor who argues here for predeterminism is contradicting God, who gives accounts in His word about people Paul has just pointed to, people like Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, who most certainly resisted His will. To argue for predeterminism is to claim that God made me as I am, so that I had to rebel, and I am doing God's decretive will when I sin/rebel.

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against (i.e. that is contradicting) God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast THOU made me THUS?

Paul then uses the parable of the potter to show that what the clay becomes is not 100% the potter's call. . The quality of the product the potter can make depends on the quality of the clay and the degree to which it will conform to the potter’s vision. The potter may intend to make a high quality vessel for honourable use out of some clay, but in the process of forming the vessel, the clay resists the potter's will so that He cannot make of it the high-quality vessel he intended. As a result he revises his plan and makes a lower-quality vessel for some menial use, or if he cannot make even a vessel for menial use of the clay, he may dump project in the trash. Another piece of the same clay from the same lump might co-operate with the potter's aim and become a vessel for honourable use. The potter always aspires to make quality products, but he is limited by the quality of the clay he has in his hands. No potter corrupts the clay himself, in order to justify making a menial vessel out of it, or to justify discarding it as trash.

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Paul then implies that he thinks that the reason God is not instantly discarding the menial vessels made from lumpy non-malleable clay (but keeps them in his workshop and keeps working on them), even though they frustrate Him and he feels like dumping them into the trash, is that He has hope that He will be able to find an acceptable use, even if only a menial use, in his house for some of them in the end. Any such redeemed vessels, would become vessels of mercy who will be experiencing the richness of His glory. (Ps. 84:10 For a day in your courts is better than a thousand; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of the wicked.)

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Who are these vessels of mercy? They are we, the church, both Jews and Gentiles, who were vessels of wrath, but became vessels of mercy when we put our faith in Christ.

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So, Gentiles who were not called God's people become His beloved people by grace through faith.

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

 

[PaulThomson]

...
So, Gentiles who were not called God's people become His beloved people by grace through faith.

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

And a majority of Jews, who were descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, according to flesh, shall be judged as rebels and cut off; but a remnant of them down through history will believe in Christ and be saved.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

So, under the gospel, Gentiles according to the flesh, who were once faithless toward, God will be won over to faith by the love of God demonstrated through Christ; but Israel according to the flesh who sought to demonstrate their uniqueness and moral superiority to the gentiles by outward customs of Torah law-keeping, thinking that their God-given laws were what made them morally superior, proved their own unrighteousness by their imperfect keeping of the law and lip-service to God.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[sevoldoG]

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)
Condemned “already”
Is he speaking as the Son of God eternally? He doesn’t leave much wiggle room for change.
I’ve always wondered.
Anyone (since it is relative subject matter).
Thanks

 

[Magenta]

the only sense in which this is true is that Paul in Romans 9 is dealing with your resistance
to God's will to harden whom He pleases and have mercy on whom He pleases.

Romans 9:18; John 6:44; John 6:65; John 6:37; John 6:63; Titus 3:5 ~ God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. He saved us because of His mercy, through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Magenta]

Romans 9:19-21 One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?